Especially in corporate environments it's rather common to buy devices in bulk. They are often maintained by IT staff, ensuring the software stack installed on it is identical as well. Not to mention the external IP addresses.
I can see the privacy implications this has, but how in the world would such a method successfully discern between 2 identical devices?
I guess I'm not the only one who was a bit confused about that.
I just recently had one of my first LED bulbs fail (the most expensive one at that). It was an 8W dimmable bulb and it still flickers so I suspect the controller is broken and not the LED itself.
Got 2 new 12W bulbs this week for only €10 a pop, sent from China. And I love them. Just need to wait and see now how long they'll last.
I still have an SVGA CRT lying around that's from between 1990-1994 and it also doesn't suffer from burn-in. It does suffer from temporary image persistence, though. Resolution goes up to 960*600 (for some odd reason it's not 960*640), so it's still kinda usable.
I've never ever had burn-in issues with my 19" Philips CRT bought in 2005. OTOH, I've had a pretty severe case of burn-in on a SGS2 AMOLED display, but the tech is much younger so it's not entirely unexpected.
Do you also see a huge bar at the bottom of the screen in Gnome 3? Or do you just not use Windows all that much
the cowards way out
Judging by their spelling, I'm absolutely positive they have a Slashdot account.
To be fair, the Nexus wireless charging pads suck. Samsung's are better, as they tend to be phone-sized, which makes for much easier alignment. http://www.samsung.com/us/mobi...
That's interesting. Coding as a kid, I more or less came up with the same principle for my little programs. I also later figured that it was misguided to leave robustness up to the implementation, instead of the specification (or in my case the function definition).
API functions that have any reasonable expectations for default values should just define those defaults, not silently default to something seemly random and completely undocumented.
And I am a native Dutch speaker, and while (West) Flemish has its own ISO language code, they're really Dutch dialects and they are much more intelligible to me (and most Dutch) than West Frisian. West Frisian, now that is a language in its own right, even though it's spoken in Friesland, a Dutch province.
You mean the "Vlamingen"?
To be fair, though, I like the Flemish dialect more than standard Dutch. More refined.
All of my old CDs will play will play, albeit with some skipping.
That's great, in theory. In reality it will just lead people to create very easy to remember passwords, since people are good at routine and not at things that change constantly. Those easy passwords, in turn, are much more easily cracked. How would you mitigate that risk, increasing the password change frequency?
I've worked with highly sensitive systems (*ahem* the Ogone payment system for one) that use silly policies like these, and yet are horribly unsafe. At one time when I tried to login with an expired password I got an error message saying that the password was not "completely" valid and that I should understand that the password is case-sensitive! Well, that message implies that they can do a case-insensitive check, which means they don't even hash passwords.
In my experience these policies just shift the responsibility for proper security to the end-user. Even though, in theory, it may act as a complementary security measure, in practice that's counterproductive for 99% of users. Also it is more often than not used as the only security measure (apart from the basic $input == $password).
Thank you. I've been saying this from the beginning and am very annoyed that every time people write about Heartbleed, it links to Codenomicon's site. Even if it was an independent discovery (which it wasn't) then it's still too much credit. People should just link to the official CVE...
What's more, if you are able to remember the details of the experiment, you are more than capable of remembering a few decimals of what is probably the most widely known constant in mathematics.